Putin's hooking Maliki up with fighter jets. He loves putting more wood in the fire. This puts Obama in a bind. If our ultimate goal is to protect the US from outside terrorist attacks, I would completely lay low for now and let Maliki, Russia, Assad and Iran piss off the Islamist's to the point where it's too hipsterish to attack America.

Maybe I am missing something here, but aren't we already training rebels? I guess this would make it official? And didn't this guy just call them farmers and dentists? Toppling Assad, a "fantasy". I really try to like Obama, but wtf. I guess he realizes the need for an actual proxy force.

The administration's budget request includes $1.5 billion for a "Regional Stabilization Initiative" in which the Syrian opposition would partner with neighboring countries Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq.

dempsey_k wrote:Yes, a lot of this is just putting it on the books. But the rebels we've been training in the south around Deraa and such aren't enough. This, if Obama follows through with it, looks at helping rebels in the north as well. Still pretty sure it means bupkiss for the Kurds, which is sad.

I agree. We should be pumping money to the Kurds. They helped us with so much in the war and could be a very key ally these days. Why are we dicking around with them? They are a bright spot in a dark region.

Yeah because they have already figured out who they want the next leader to be. They had a name, but I forgot it. Either way, no way in hell Iran accepts anything other then what they are looking for. They don't care about Maliki. They'll throw him off the bus easily for another puppet.

A senior Iranian general who met with Shiite politicians in Iraq during a 10-day visit this month returned home with a list of potential prime minister candidates for Iran’s leadership to consider, several senior Iraqi Shiite politicians who have knowledge of the general’s meetings told The Associated Press.

Soleimani, is expected to return within days to inform Iraqi politicians of Tehran’s favorite, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the internal deliberations.

This is how Iran operates. They are masters of subtle hegemony. Always playing both side of the coin as well.

I'm not a seasoned vet at this like you and demps, but why not work closer with them to keep somewhat of a presence in whatever Iraq might become? They didn't cause this disaster and are willing to fight ISIS to the death.

I love you too Moose. Your jokes would be slightly better if they were accurate. 3/10. Had 5/10 potential. The moms basement joke was good in the 80s. Shit, maybe you are still stuck there with Jack. I think I'll take a peek in the Leafs board from now on. : )

You'd think this would paint a giant target on Baghdadi's head. It's a direct threat to everyone, but especially the Saudi monarchy. The Shiites might be a regional competitor to them, but this undermines their right to rule.

dempsey_k wrote:Will be interesting to see if Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, Al Shabaab, Boko Haraam, others pledge bayah. Doubtful if groups in AfPak do because of their closeness to AQC/Zawahiri, but some might and a war will spark up there.

Attacking a group that has brought this so called Caliphate to life wouldn't sit too well with many of those extremists. All other groups are now invalid. I think this was a really smart move on behalf of ISIS. They can use it as a shield and now declare an offensive Jihad (looking at you Saudi Arabia). Hopefully they kill each other. The one thing that worries me is AQ looking to gain some street cred back by attacking the US. We want them infighting, not both plotting attacks. This whole thing is fucked up. This is a sensitive issue that won't be solved by sending Iraq more Hellfire missiles. Core issues have to be addressed and that starts with paranoid Sunni's thinking the world is out to get them and the Gulf states pouring money into this. At this point, ISIS/AQ are more passionate about establishing this then we are about destroying it. I'll be watching Fox News tonight to hear how Obama should be impeached for allowing a Caliphate to be established.

I know, but we have to look at it through their scope. If you are a young impressionable future jihadist...why would you want to align yourself to any other group other then being influenced by someone close to home? They see something tangible in IS. What is AQ offering other then clinging on to 9/11 and the face of the franchise, bin Laden. Maybe I am overestimating IS power, but I think al-Qaeda as we know it might be done.

dempsey_k wrote:No change in Saudi/GCC policy: they've had a target on Baghdadi's head since formation of the IF.

Meh, up until now he was just a piece in the geopolitical puzzle. Not really a direct threat as long as he was focussing on killing Shiites and generally being a pest to their enemies. He's now an existential threat to their order.

Yes, it's surprising that two enemies in a proxy war are now pledging to cooperate whilst still supporting their proxies killing each other.

Heh, there are too many examples in history of this type of thing to be surprised, really.

dempsey_k wrote:Nothing is new under the sun, that doesn't mean saying "not surprising" to express dominance over a subject renders the speed bumps any less of a jolt for you as well.

What?

Qatar has its fingers in every pot. They are attempting to provide the third way of geopolitics in the region, which are usually at odds with Iran and often at odds with their GCC co-members. In short, they are dilettantes. They are protected from internal threats by their great wealth and external threats by the large US military presence in their country. It's almost as if their foreign policy is designed to generate headlines for Al Jazeera.

So is some kind of (relatively meaningless) grand statement of cooperation with Iran all that surprising? Not really. If it was any other member of the GCC, sure, you'd have a point. But not Qatar.